Borrowed Authority

“The principal cause of the conflict is the NATO decision to bring Ukraine into the alliance. There is no evidence from before 2022 that [Russian president Vladimir] Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine, that he was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine or pursuing any political measures that would make it possible to occupy the entire country.”

Who do you think said this?

John J. Mearsheimer, the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago

And Who Is the Source of This Quote?

Comment in interview with Carlson 2025, also quite incorrect
Statements like this or Mearsheimer’s claim about NATO and Putin’s intentions on previous slide clearly convey the points the Kremlin wants to convey to foreign audiences. But here, domestic actors with an expert or professional status seem to do much of the heavy lifting. The claims here are phrased somewhat neutrally/academically, but some renowned experts go further: Noam Chomsky claimed that the U.S. has imposed constraints on access to information that “go beyond what was the case in post-Stalin Soviet Russia” or Russia has been waging war on Ukraine “more humanely” than U.S. in Iraq
And this is quite important given that domestic support for aiding Ukraine and limiting foreign aggression by countries like Russia is somewhat limited, so such expert statements can, in a way, justify military aggression by autocrats
NOT SAYING THAT THESE EXPERTS ACTUALLY WORK FOR RUSSIA / other reasons including ideology or the benefits of being seen as a contrarian or just being misinformed

“The largest issue in that conflict are these regions: Donbas, Crimea, Lugansk, and two others. They are Russian-speaking, and there have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule.”

Steve Witkoff, the United States Special Envoy to the Middle East and United States Special Envoy for Peace Missions

Do Experts Lend Credibility to Foreign Propaganda?

Do such experts claims actually help foreign propaganda, such as RU propaganda?
EXPERTS: professionals whose job responsibilities involve developing a deeper understanding of social or political issues in order to produce academic knowledge, inform the public, advise policymakers, or otherwise influence policies INCLUDING WITKOFF - you and I may not see him as an expert on RU/UA/war, but his status and non-public role add such expert credibility
Impartial: non-partisans and citizens from opposing camps may distrust partisan actors’ messaging because of its source -> even discover it as foreign-based. Expert arguments can appear persuasive to wider audiences. Corporations have known this for a long time + Russia and other governments cultivate relationships with experts and academics in other countries / Valdai Club
Experts are still widely present in public discourse, despite weakening of authority
So on the whole, my expectation is that expert source adds credibility

Foreign propaganda can persuade citizens in democracies (Fisher 2020; Mattingly et al. 2025)
Domestic partisan actors and media add prominence to foreign messaging (Watanabe 2017; Benkler et al. 2018; Waight et al. 2025)
Yet, the role of experts in the spread of foreign messaging is unclear
- Less prominent than partisan actors or major media
- Distrust in expert authority is growing (Nichols 2017)
- But perceived impartiality can add credibility to experts’ claims

Hypothesis 1: Attributing a foreign propaganda statement to a domestic expert increases belief in this statement

Can Evidence-Based Corrections Counter Propaganda Voiced by Experts?

Expert statements promoting propaganda may be quite straightforward to correct
- Less partisan backlash to corrections (Nyhan and Reifler 2010; Badrinathan 2021)
- Expert claims are viewed as evidence-driven \(\rightarrow\) can be countered with alternative evidence

Hypothesis 2: Corrections and qualifications of foreign propaganda statements promoted by experts decrease belief in such statements

Empirical question: Do such corrections fully offset the “expert credibility premium?”

Experimental Design

Survey experiment with 1,263 U.S. residents, August 2025
- Sample from Cint Theorem
Two expert claims about the Russo-Ukrainian war by John Mearsheimer and Steve Witkoff, presented in random order
2x2 factorial experiment
- Expert claim displayed with/without source attribution
- Claim displayed with/without a correction (context)
Outcome question:
- How credible is this statement on a scale from 1 to 5?

Vignettes (Mearsheimer as an Example)

Statement only: “The principal cause of the conflict is the NATO decision to bring Ukraine into the alliance. There is no evidence from before 2022 that [Russian president Vladimir] Putin wanted to conquer Ukraine, that he was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine or pursuing any political measures that would make it possible to occupy the entire country.”
Statement+Attribution: STATEMENT + “This statement was made by John J. Mearsheimer, a Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.”

Vignettes (Mearsheimer as an Example)

Statement+Correction: STATEMENT + “Context: Authoritative news reporting finds substantial evidence of Russia’s desire to capture Ukraine’s territory long before 2022. In 2014, the Kremlin attempted to stage uprisings and install puppet governments in Donbas, Lugansk, and other Ukrainian regions. Putin has questioned Ukraine’s right to exist. In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine again, it planned eliminating Ukraine’s elected leaders and replacing them with pro-Russian politicians.”
Statement+Attribution+Correction: STATEMENT followed by ATTRIBUTION and then CORRECTION

Results: Main Treatment Effects

Figure 1: Perceived statement credibility based on the presence of expert attribution and factual corrections in the Mearsheimer and Witkoff experiments.

Effects by Partisanship: Mearsheimer

Figure 2: Perceived statement credibility based on the presence of expert attribution and factual corrections in the Mearsheimer experiment, depending on the respondent’s partisanship.

Effects by Partisanship: Witkoff

Figure 3: Perceived statement credibility based on the presence of expert attribution and factual corrections in the Witkoff experiment, depending on the respondent’s partisanship.

Takeaways and Next Steps

The speaker’s academic status can elevate foreign propaganda claims
However, audiences are receptive to evidence-based corrections
- They can offset the “expert credibility premium”

Next steps:

Consider other domestic experts and possibly compare their credibility effects to those of politicians
Consider other outcomes, including policy opinions and attitudes to countries
Consider effects of corrections on expert credibility